Straw person, steel people and jokes

During the White House press Trump President appeared interested injecting disinfectants as a Covid-19 treatment. Medical responses and Manufacturers of Lysol warned the public against the attempt. Trump advocates took two main strategies. The first was to interpret trump expressions in a good way; The second was told that the “truth verification” was told that Trump was injected the disinfectant. Trump finally said the journalists were sarcastic to see what they would do. From the point of view of critical thinking, it takes a lot with rhetorical devices and falls. I will discuss how critical thinking can sort through this situation because the next pandemic will see the performance of the repetition.

In interpreting or reconstructing claims and arguments, philosophers are believed to apply the principle of charity. After this principle, interpreting claims is required to be as strong as possible arguments as possible and reconstruct possible arguments. There are three reasons to follow the principle. The first is that doing this is ethical. The second is that doing so avoids making a falic person, that I will talk a little more. The third is that if I criticize a person’s claims or arguments, the critic of the best and most powerful versions care for smaller versions.

The principle of charity must be templared according to the principle of plausibility: claims must be interpreted, and the arguments reconstructed in a way that matches what is known about the source and context. For example, reading quantum physics would violate this principle of reading quantum work in Plato’s work.

Returning the disinfectant to inject, it is important to present the trump statements accurately in context and avoid a person of straw. Falthy straw is committed when he ignores a person’s actual claim or argument and represents a distorted version of it, excessive or bad treatment. This type of “reasoning” has the following model:

1. Premise: A person makes an argument x.

2. Premise: B person Opa and is a distorted version of x.

3. Premise: B person attack Y.

Conclusion: So x is fake / wrong / error.

This type of “reasoning” has fallen that the distorted version of a claim or argument is not the criticism of the original. This lease often uses hyperbola, a rhetorical device, in which it makes an excessive claim. Serson straw can be effective because people often do not know the actual claim or argument. Fallacy is especially effective when straw people match the naughty viewers or stereotypes feel that the distorted version is the real version.

While this fallacy is aimed at a spectator, it can be self-influenced: A person can accidentally want a straw outside of a claim or argument. This can be completely mistake (perhaps due to ignorance) or due to the influence of prejudice and bikes.

The defense against a straw man, self-influence, or not, is to achieve a person’s claim or argument and apply the principle of charity and the principle of plausibility.

Some trump defenders claimed that Trump was the victim of a straw person’s attack; They started on a “verification” trip and Trump did not say people say to drink bleach. Somewhat ironically, they acted in straw people trying to defend the alleged straw attacks. Not notice that people do not drink bleach or disinfectants to not drink that Trump is not told people to do these things.

It is true that Trump did not say people drink bleach. From the official transcription of the White Houses are: “And then I see a disinfectant, which happens, inside the injection or almost cleansing. So it sounds interesting to me.”

Trump does not tell people to drink or disinfectant bleach. Therefore, “chewable clorx” and similar memos were the form of visual attack against trump. But they can also be seen as a rhetorical device for mockery. To prevent falsification of straw people, we need to use real trump expressions and attack the drinking bleach.

Trump does not directly say people inject disinfectants, in a form of innuendo, is a rhetorical technique. Anyone who understands how language and impact works on Trump’s notes would know that some people were something to consider. To do this there are evidence of New York City Poison Control Control Centers and similar calls in Maryland and other states. It is a feature of Innuendo who said they to deny or suggest a person, after all, they did not say directly. Having someone’s responsibility said he assumed or suggested his words. Doing this can be a challenge because of their nature and motives. There is also a moral problem that people caused by the responsibility of what people care about, something that go beyond critical thinking and ethics. But a president must be careful what they say.

The words used by Trump thought doctors had to inject the disinfectants to the lungs of the peoples, as a possible Covid-19 treatment. Trump gave a record of dangerous ignorance, meaning that his words, as it meets the requirements of the principle of charity, meets the conditions of charity and the principle of the plausal: they are in the context, and the whole source.

Some Trump defenders also tried to use the person who could be called FALTHACE people. The steel person falika ignores a person’s claim or argument and to better replace it in its place. This type of “reasoning” has the following model:

1. Premise: A person makes an argument x.

2. Premise: The B (better version of x) presents.

3. Premise: B advocates people y.

Conclusion: So x is true / correct / good.

This type of “reasoning” has fallen to present and defend the better version of a claim or argument that it is not good for the original. Steel people can be an effective person often does not know the actual claim or argument. Fallacy is particularly effective when it comes to the positive bias or stereotypes of the steel people, they will feel The improved version is the real version and accepted. The principle of charity is the difference in falsification and the principle of steel. The principle of charity is aimed at being fair, the lack of steel person is much better to show a person’s claim or argument.

Although this fallacy is aimed at the audience, it can also be self-influenced: A person can accidentally take a steel person from a claim or argument. This can be done in errors (perhaps due to ignorance) or the effect of positive bias. The defense against a steel man, self-influence or not, should be careful to obtain a person’s claim or argument and apply the principle of plausibility.

In the case of Trump, the disinfectant showed interest in injection in the human body. His advocates created the steel version of his claims, presenting the use of new information about the use of light, heat and disinfectant that was actually dying the virus. Trump has been concluded that it was well because it would be a mistake in logic. While light, heat and disinfects will destroy the virus, Trump was about injecting the disinfectant in man’s body.

Trump himself decided to say these defenders “Sarcacally asking a question to see what would happen to journalists like you.” If this is true, then his defenders would say that they were not talking about the disinfectant. He was unable to say something dangerous, making a trolling press and a true and rational claim about clean surfaces. It seems that Trump has used a rhetorical device with the right (although anyone can use). This method could be called “Broding” technique and can be placed in Meme in terms “Lulz”.

“Joking” Tactic “takes a racist, soft, sexist or otherwise that they say,” the person’s “defense” is an elusive maneuver designed to avoid responsibility. To evaluate the defense of this tactic without a wicked intention. They are trying to be or attempted to fail or without responsibility? This is difficult to sort, because you need to know the people’s motives, nature, and so on.

“Tactic” tactics “tactics” like a “tactic”, often trying to reduce humiliation. In the case of Trumpen injection, he said he was saying. He wanted to do that, but he was kidding.

If Trump was joking, he thought it was a good idea to train in a pandemic media, which is an ethical issue than critical thinking. If he were not kidding, he was trying to avoid responsibility for his claim, that is, the point of that tactic. Is it a defense against this tactic to evaluate whether or not people were joking, that is, did they really mean to do it and what they wanted to do was doing kidding? This requires knowledge of the nature and motifs of the person, as well as considering the context. In the case of Trump, the video shows him aimed at the remarks of experts rather than press and it seems completely serious. There are a president that is in summary in a pandemic that the president must be serious than Sarcastic. That way, it doesn’t seem to be kidding. Trump, however, placed in a terrible dilemma: he suggested a dangerous idea or trying to train thousands of Americans in the dying pandemia. In any case, it would be awesome. This attempt is focused on Trump and Covid-19 Pandemia; We should expect something similar, if not worse, another pandemic should be created during the reign of Trump.